Chambers v. O'Quinn
| Decision Date | 14 December 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-1073.,06-1073. |
| Citation | 242 S.W.3d 30 |
| Parties | Bob CHAMBERS, et al., Petitioners, v. John M. O'QUINN, John M. O'Quinn, P.C. and John M. O'Quinn d/b/a O'Quinn & Laminack, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
C. Benton Musslewhite, Law Office of Benton Musslewhite, Houston, TX, for Petitioners.
Craig Smyser and Justin McKenzie Waggoner, Smyser Kaplan & Veselka, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Respondents.
In this case, we consider whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review an order compelling arbitration under the Texas Arbitration Act (TAA) as part of the appeal of a final judgment in the case. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 171.001-.098. The court of appeals concluded that mandamus was the appropriate remedy and dismissed the appeal in a memorandum opinion reasoning that, because mandamus relief had previously been denied by another court of appeals and this Court, it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the issue. 2006 WL 2853893. Because we disagree that the previous mandamus proceedings' deprived the court of appeals of appellate jurisdiction in this matter, we reverse the court of appeals' judgment and remand the case for its review on the merits.
On November 23, 1999, Bob Chambers and 182 other former clients (hereinafter "Chambers") sued John M. O'Quinn for legal malpractice in connection with his representation and settlement of their toxic tort claims. O'Quinn responded with a motion to compel arbitration under the terms of a compulsory arbitration clause in his contingency fee agreement. The trial court granted the motion, and Chambers immediately sought review of the order by mandamus. Two courts of appeals and this Court denied mandamus relief without discussing the merits of Chambers' complaint. In re Chambers, 2002 WL 24567, at *1; In re Chambers, Cause No. 14-02-00020-CV (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002); In re Chambers, Cause No. 02-0154 (Tex.2002).
After the appellate courts refused to grant any relief, the trial court directed Chambers to submit his claims to arbitration by July 9, 2004, or have them dismissed. When Chambers delayed, the trial court dismissed his suit for want of prosecution, and Chambers appealed. 2006 WL 2853893.
While this appeal was pending, the parties proceeded to arbitration, with the `arbitrator ultimately ruling in O'Quinn's favor. Because the trial court had already dismissed his original action, Chambers filed a new suit to vacate the arbitration award. The trial court, however, confirmed the arbitration award, and Chambers perfected a second appeal from this judgment. Chambers v. O'Quinn, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 9006, at *3-4, 2006 WL 2974318, at * 1 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 19, 2006).
Both appeals were assigned to the same panel of the First Court of Appeals, but they were not consolidated. 2006 WL 2853893, at *1, n. 5. In two, separate memorandum opinions, the court (1) affirmed the judgment of the trial court confirming the arbitration award, Chambers, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 9006, at * 19, 2006 WL 2974318, at *6, and (2) dismissed the appeal of the order compelling arbitration on jurisdictional grounds, 2006 WL 2853893, at *2.
In dismissing Chambers' first appeal, the court concluded that mandamus was the proper remedy to review an order compelling arbitration. 2006 WL 2853893, at *2 (citing In re Am. Homestar of Lancaster, Inc., 50 S.W.3d 480, 483 (Tex. 2001)). Noting further that Chambers had already sought and been refused mandamus relief by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals and this Court, the court dismissed the appeal, concluding it lacked appellate jurisdiction and was bound by these previous rulings denying mandamus. Id. at *2.
Under the TAA, a party can appeal an order or judgment that either: (1) denies an application to compel arbitration made under section 171.021, or (2) grants an application to stay arbitration under section 171.023. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. Con § 171.098(a)(1), (2). The Act is onesided, allowing interlocutory appeals solely from orders that deny arbitration. Similarly, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) makes no provision for an interlocutory appeal from an order compelling arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 16. Because the FAA does not provide for interlocutory appeals from orders compelling arbitration, we concluded in American Homestar and Freis that mandamus was the appropriate remedy. See Am. Homestar, 50 S.W.3d at 483; see also Freis v. Canales, 877 S.W.2d 283, 284 (Tex.1994).
Since our decision in Freis, the United States Supreme Court has said that orders compelling arbitration can be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perry Homes v. Cull
...was denied 7 days later. It refiled in this Court on April 26, and was denied 13 days later. 6. 173 S.W.3d 565, 568. 7. Chambers v. O'Quinn, 242 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex.2007). 8. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex.2004); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992......
-
In re Gulf Exploration, LLC
...FLA. R.APP. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) (same); OHIO REV.CODE § 2711.02 (same). 10. See UNIF. ARBITRATION ACT § 28(a) (2000); Chambers v. O'Quinn, 242 S.W.3d 30, 31 (Tex. 2007). 11. See Douglass v. Pflueger Hawaii, Inc., 110 Hawai'i 520, 135 P.3d 129, 131 n. 1 (2006); Salsitz v. Kreiss, 198 Ill.2......
-
Bonsmara Natural Beef Co. v. Hart of Tex. Cattle Feeders, LLC
...held that "the court of appeals has jurisdiction to review the order ... [on] appeal" from a final judgment. Chambers v. O'Quinn , 242 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam). As we explained in Hernandez v. Ebrom , nothing in the permissive language or context of our interlocutory appeal st......
-
Human Biostar, Inc. v. Celltex Therapeutics Corp.
...arbitration are not entitled to interlocutory appeal; however, they can be reviewed after final judgment in the case. Chambers v. O'Quinn , 242 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex. 2007) (citing Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 89, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000) ). A judgment confirmin......
-
Table of Cases
...838 (TexApp — Houston [14th Dist] 2001, pet denied), §6:224 Chambers v. Conaway , 883 SW2d 156 (Tex 1993), §3:237 Chambers v. O’Quinn , 242 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. 2007), §§18:83, 38:226 Chambers v. Pruitt , 241 SW3d 679 (TexApp — Dallas 2007, no pet), §§7:21, 7:38, 7:64, 31:69 Chambers v. Rosenber......
-
Settlement and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
...FAA can be reviewed after final judgment in the case. Greentree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph , 531 u.S. 79, 89 (2000); Chambers v. O’Quinn , 242 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex. 2007). Moreover, the Texas appellate courts are still to review the issue of whether an order compelling arbitration under the FAA w......
-
Interlocutory Appeals and Mandamus Proceedings
...FAA can be reviewed after final judgment in the case. Greentree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph , 531 U.S. 79, 89 (2000); Chambers v. O’Quinn , 242 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex. 2007). Moreover, the Texas appellate courts are still to review the issue of whether an order compelling arbitration under the FAA w......